Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:47AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

the redevelopment of Spencer St station, in Melbourne, after the construction of the Colonial Stadium is a sight to behold.

i'm all for the stadium if, as you say, it can be built on time (i don't believe it can, dunno why, just 'gut feel'), and if the public transport aspect really comes through.

pretty much everyone in Melbourne uses PT to get to the sports precinct around the MCG, and to the Colonial Stadium (which was last called the Telstra Dome, i'm assuming it still is).

this is what a good stadium needs. public space so it's useful when games and gigs aren't being played, ease of access, and proximity to great things that complement it as a urban centre.

Posted at 10:55AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

I'm a fan of the Carlaw Park option. Anyone know why it's not even being considered? Too many activist rate-payers in the area? Space just not big enough? Maybe it would interfere with a new SE-corridor plan (which, a little bird told me, we should be hearing about in the near future).

Posted at 10:58AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

Anyone know why it's not even being considered?

Privately owned and too small, according to Breakfast this morning.

Posted at 11:02AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

I have to wonder how much of this objection to the waterfront idea is based on who is behind it. e.g Hubbard and the Labour govt.

In the current politcal climate the current government could solve world hunger, stop all wars and abloish income tax and it some would still say to "little to late"

Posted at 11:08AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

As a fan of excellent architecture (this brings a tear to my eye), I'd like to see something more ambitious on the waterfront.

I guess a stadium has certain design contraints that preclude a truly unique construction. Add time constraints into the mix and we get something 'ok' but not spectacular.

I still think it's the best option, just wish it had been proposed a lot earlier.

Posted at 11:09AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

matthewbuchanan: Privately owned and too small, according to Breakfast this morning.

This seems like a lame excuse to use for Carlaw Park. After all isn't the port area owned by the ports? And don't they need that land for running a port?

I'm all for Carlaw Park. It just makes sense. And while we are at it why do none of the options have a covered stadium? Wouldn't it make sense if you are going to spend that much money to actually build something that people will still go to when it is raining? Just look at the poor turnouts at games when the weather is rubbish.

Something about the whole way this has been handled just seems fishy...

Posted at 11:12AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

That's exactly how I feel about the ABs; their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory has been heartbreaking.

But I have to take issue with the claim that Australians understand great public spaces: I mean, have you seen Sydney? Oh, that's right, you can't: there's too many buildings in the way...

Posted at 11:17AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

So I'm living in Melbourne right now, and the still not quite finished Southern Cross (Spencer Street) station is pretty amazing. But if what the locals tell me is true, then it was meant to be finished before the commonwealth games 8 months ago.

That might be acceptable for a train station but not for the fixture where the final is going to be played. You'd expect some pretty strongly worded contracts for the new stadium project.

Posted at 11:18AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

After all isn't the port area owned by the ports? And don't they need that land for running a port?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the land is owned by Ports of Auckland which is owned by the Council?

Too small I could understand, and you'd need to commandeer land from the Domain.

I agree with Ben that a waterfront stadium needs to be special (although not quite that special maybe :D).

Posted at 11:25AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

Forget the stadium. The real issue that should be concerning us right now is whether the ABs can take out the cup in 2007.

How well I remember the very last test played at Athletic Park. The French were run ragged in a freezing cold Southerly and it seemed as though the 1999 cup was in the bag.

There were a couple of naysayers, my visiting Dad pointed out that he thought our backs were running pretty flat angles, that evening a Welshman warned that we had not seen the French play. He said (in best Gollum tones) "they're sneaky, the French". Then there was a report of a rather too merry French team on the flight back to Auckland.

We now know the semi-final result of 1999. I'm with RB on this one and I sure hope that Henry has another 70 plays up his sleeve that the rest of the world have never seen and will not be revealed until the closing stages of 2007.

Oh, and Aucklanders, get a bloody stadium built and get it built quick. Stop blaming everyone else for your procrastination, if you stuff it up now, you stuff it up for all New Zealand!

Posted at 11:49AM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

While I am relatively indifferent to whatever the final outcome of any stadium is, The real concern I have is the arse about face way the process has been managed,

I mean, what did we go to the IRB with last year?,

Why has it taken a year since the awarding of the event for the Govt to come up with "Auckland has to choose in two weeks or we will give the final to Christchurch" - this seems very much a "do this or the bunny gets it...." approach to consultation

If the waterfront stadium is as great a part of the "economic transformation" of Auckland as we are led to believe, then why not take a longer time to actaully work out what Auckland need/want/can afford, - yes it may not be built for the RWC, but this stadium is being built for 50+ years future use, not one game,

Or is the only way things get done in this country a rush job for a special event when you get to roll over objections, rather than going through a RMA process (hmm never really thought I would ever end up defending the RMA :),

Posted at 12:10PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

I do like the idea of an iconic, waterfront stadium and I can't agree with those that believe it will be an eyesore. I'm fully in agreement with RB with respect to the hideous buildings that have been sanctioned around Quay Park, for which there seems to have been little or no debate.

I'm concerned that we can build this thing within the timeframe - and it would be a crime to put up an ordinary venue just to satisfy the time constraint.

In addition, having lived on Dominion Road in days gone by and seen the parking chaos that surrounds a match, I seriously wonder about the carparking options that we'd have within cooee of a new stadium. Clearly an underground carpark below the venue would be somewhat tricky. I can't say I have much faith that public transport will suddenly mature sufficiently to alleviate the need for a significant increase in central city parking in order to cope with the stadium.

Posted at 12:38PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

I'm also all for the Water Front, it makes alot of sense. I currently have a visitor from the UK, who stayed in Auckland for a few days before coming up North & was shall we say less than complimentary about the existing location for the Waterfront stadium, tatty & run down down I believe was the term, a new stadium there would be a great asset & also make a quality link between Queen St & the viaduct the priority it should be.

Posted at 12:48PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

having lived over the road from eden park (walters road), we routinely put up with incredible traffic woes, a complete lack of parking anywhere within a km of our own place, drunken parties in the carparks and people pissing in the oleander because... well because it was EDEN PARK.

would be better if the finals was near a revamped britomart, IMHO. just teach aucklanders that you don't always need to park your pajero out front of a stadium to have a good time.

Posted at 12:50PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

The waterfront makes sense if they build it as a barge which can be floated around the country. Then it can truly be Aotearoa Stadium :)

Posted at 1:05PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

Parking is still important, Che: a lot of us live outside the area of Auckland's public transportation. If we're to come to a game, we need a place to drop our wheels. I guess there'll be plenty of parking near Eden Park if the waterfront stadium gets built, eh?

If Carlaw Park is in private hands, whose private hands are they? Is Eden Park similarly in private hands?

PS, surely if all we've been drinking is stadium Tui then it's more "watering the oleander" than anything else?

Posted at 1:15PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

Personally I'm starting to suffer from 'Auckland news is national news overload'. I'm fully in favour of this thing being a national stadium for big important events which require a really big stadium, which we can't have in every city. I'm happy that a few of my (Dunedin) tax dollars go to it. I don't particularly care which of the umpteen options mentioned are done, but the waterfront seems more logical to me in terms of being away from suburbia, and having something a bit different, larger, to stand out, and be near public transport.

But like BarnacleBarnes above I'm amazed that a gazillion dollars is going to be spent on a very pretty and large stadium, and there's no room in that budget for a roof. They're looking at relocating Carisbrook, 32,000 seats, all whizz-bang, a roof on top, and it's going to cost less than a third ($180 million) the amount this new stadium is going to cost. Are we seriously going to have our new national stadium for the next 50 years or so, with cricket matches wrecked due to light rain, and rugby matches turning into swimming matches? Two years after it's built everyone is going to be bitching about how they should have put a roof on it, and how Carisbrook now leads the way and every stadium should have a roof etc etc etc.

And if Auckland news producers could stop putting it on the national TV news every night. Just build the fucker. Enough already.

Posted at 1:16PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

Aren't Tongariro National Park, Fijordland and the Southern Alps "great public spaces" enough for us? The Aussies need monuments to cover up for lack of self-confidence (not to mention that nasty little bit of nagging guilt that comes from living in a stolen country).

Anyway, I have a suggestion for funding the stadium. There are about 3 million electors in NZ, and the likely cost (above that which can be found from sponsorship, etc) is around $600 million.

So why not have a pledge system? Everyone who wants the stadium could sign up and pledge a minimum of $400. If a majority vote and pledge "yes" then that's raised the money and we can go ahead and build the stadium. Any surplus could go to build a giant Haka Man on top, new cars for the All Blacks ( or even kids rugby).

If we don't make the numbers, then we just have to go back to the IRB and tell them that we're sorry, but being a democracy we have to make decisions democratically, and people just said no. It'll be 40,000 seats at Eden Park for the final or you can go and play the world cup in North Korea or someplace that it's easier to get decisions made.

Posted at 1:19PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

I see the appeal too. I would just like someone to tell me it can absolutely, positively be built in time to fulfil its purpose.

With all due respect, Russell, I've three words for anyone who will do any such thing: Multiplex, Wembley Stadium. It would also be rather nice if some of cheerleaders got their heads around the notion that the Rapture isn't going to happen ten minutes after the end of the World Cup final in 2011. What is it that makes it so hard to get the words rugby and rational policy debate in the same sentence?

Gary Hutching has it right, IMO: I was pretty agnositc about the idea of a waterfront stadium, but I strenuously object to the stench of badly thought through proposals being cooked up in back rooms, then presented to the stupid plebs (who are ultimately going to be picking up the tab when it all goes to custard) as a done deal. Well, Mr. Hubbard and Auckland MPs of all stripes better consider there's two electoral cycles to go before 2011, and a lot of Aucklanders who are quickly losing patience with politicians with severe edifice complexes.

Posted at 1:26PM on 13 Nov 06. Permalink.

Aren't Tongariro National Park, Fijordland and the Southern Alps "great public spaces" enough for us?

Not really: we need great urban public spaces. On the other hand, I don't really see stadia as being public spaces, compared to streets, squares and parks.

Stadia are difficult to integrate into urban settings, but not impossible. Russell's vision of "glass walls encasing bars and cafes and concourses and function rooms gazing over the harbour, its lights blazing at night" is quite achievable, and while it's not easy to combine an active, humanly-scaled edge at ground level with a grand iconic structure, that's what we have architects for!